By Lauren Katzenberg in the New York Times. Thanks to Pamela P for this. What are your thoughts on national service? Should it be two years?
Seventy-three years ago, The Times reported that the United States Army demobilized its seven millionth soldier after the end of World War II. When I unearthed this clip several months ago, I thought I was misreading the number. It’s hard to imagine a single service ballooning to more than eight million people (the Army’s peak strength by V-E Day in 1945) and then releasing 6.5 million soldiers in just over a year. The draft certainly made it easier to fill the ranks, but nearly 40 percent of World War II-era service members across all branches volunteered for duty. By comparison, in today’s all-volunteer force approximately 475,000 service members make up the active-duty Army — a fraction of the overall adult population in the United States.
Last year, the Army struggled to meet its end-strength goal of 483,500, even after spending an extra $200 million on bonuses and lowering standards to let in more recruits. Reporting for The Times in September 2018, Dave Philipps wrote: “On top of having to compete with a robust economy, with an unemployment rate below 4 percent, the Army must pick from what it says is a shrinking pool of eligible recruits. More than two-thirds of young adults do not qualify for military service because of poor physical fitness or other issues such as drug use, according to the Army.”
I believe that a year of national service (broadly-based) would benefit 18-year-olds and the country. At 18, my husband, our four sons, and I, were all unready to choose the next step. We all had help in what to do with that next year–college for two of us, and jobs suggested by others for four–all of which paid off generously. During that year three of our sons discovered paths to the work they are doing now. I have wished that I had had an interim job, except that I met my husband in college during that first year, which began most of my path for 65 good years.